Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions

Yoav Nir <> Sat, 17 December 2016 13:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1E21299F7 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:20:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fEur2EawXKpN for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B837A1299F2 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id j10so17810166wjb.3 for <>; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:20:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7/KH/AqnKDRsRs9gE9LjJg5yP/hG9F6HFosYOqF19Vk=; b=UPzUXWgskk8poSF6EGzZvU0b0R7iCJoSfj+rD4t1ULdv+tMr/gTbG3EYXUTimUoald G4g0yO1amlmNwI2pvm5E3krhNv5HcOx5Aon/qHqeRawgAPljAyPhSS/2VmJ3Yq3no0Rf xDAW0BVDYD6vgoY9SmQbEFaJN3h4EhHuyEUW/U1N1j/tUaWcrAIUfzZSwXk+TedZSsTI qhefvAizZrSegBDFlHa1bMqOO+YLgwPrWWF2ee4/xWgmDy+gLPQA8Azm3Km0mASxWBKy WMfFZ1fiHSpVXhoIDM8TeqwywpGRVsi+0zNEVyHkVF8gnVwauuiumoDOnMKGRzaAwKSx 0eqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7/KH/AqnKDRsRs9gE9LjJg5yP/hG9F6HFosYOqF19Vk=; b=SNCuJ86UQFA4NQ30yBZq++JPH73xSxpAJJWbr21YoU85/1NnNtIvD9TqJMsWeq2D3d yhjIiTaQ/ozf6n1AWrSS1rNM9ndUacZFNq2oQnZlpRUcsGPCktcyToLGFW2U4BDGWEbR g6TntjOjr27AQOprCSUxr2x++yW0rU12bBpDql/osgyMktgZDZTLa8tsaOSGV1O6l4T5 wnnc1TNr9nPtkq67N0GmL/42q0/pgpSsXB5kg8/+lXifZW/vupLoE3XSsYoHdqPo/Hok aeYwyk1QCLqjiAqUYpyIDqccQmWXpbSm8xlZIS1UOHQoB3RXDEtPIRA+LTfcZMZBr7g1 isWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIk9FsfdHNcCQiILe27dPNtJwNSKg0Yh5puc8+KM7uCvBmyeWqNwKtcKb0dAGSVMA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id qp15mr6959965wjb.3.1481980822175; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:20:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ba10sm11444899wjb.32.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 17 Dec 2016 05:20:21 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: DMARC methods in mailman --- [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions (fwd) Jo-Philipp Wich: [LEDE-DEV] DMARC related mass bounces / disabled subscriptions
From: Yoav Nir <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:20:17 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Randy Bush <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF Disgust List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 13:20:25 -0000

> On 17 Dec 2016, at 12:52, Randy Bush <> wrote:
> dmarc is sorely broken and all the amielorations have not good side
> effects.  so the question to me is whether we can move the pain closer
> to the cause?

Hi, Randy.

It’s hard to move the pain in a predictable way. If I send you an email message and it’s not delivered or gets mangled or goes in your spam folder, who feels the pain? That depends on which of us needs the email more. 

The group you want to feel the pain are the administrators who add DMARC records, but other than spamming them with error reports, there’s not much we can do. I don’t think the administrators at Yahoo care too much whether their users are able to use IETF mailing lists or not.

As a proxy we can “punish" those senders who have a DMARC record for their domain. 

If we do nothing, their messages sometimes get lost. They have real problems participating effectively in the IETF unless they switch to using gmail or hotmail accounts like many of us have already done. But that gives us pain as well because we’re missing messages as long as they keep using their own accounts.

If we apply the mitigations only to such accounts, we solve the bounce issue, but then depending on the solutions we poison some of the other participants’ email addresses, or we make the UI show weird unhelpful things. Seems like everybody else gets the pain.